House Speaker Andrew Romanoff
Rep. Douglas Bruce
- Email this
- Print this
- Comments
- Change text size
- Subscribe to print edition
- iPod friendly
The matchup was inevitable.
For the past two months, House Speaker Andrew Romanoff has gathered support for a plan to untangle the knot of spending limits and mandates embedded in the Colorado Constitution.
His complex proposal would undo the tightest part of that knot by lifting the spending limits imposed by the 1992 Taxpayer's Bill of Rights. It also would repeal Amendment 23's requirement to increase education spending, and create a savings account for education.
Romanoff, D-Denver, brought a coalition of bipartisan backers with him Tuesday to help pitch the plan to the House State, Veterans & Military Affairs Committee. But an uninvited guest also showed up to testify.
Rep. Douglas Bruce, R-Colorado Springs, who was kicked off the same committee by his own party earlier this year, came back to give it a piece of his mind.
"For this purpose, I come before you as the author of the Taxpayer's Bill of Rights, and as is my wont, I will speak plainly," he began. "This measure, if adopted, will mean unlimited state spending forever."
Romanoff emphasized voters can rest assured the plan would allow them to continue to vote on all tax increases.
Outweigh arguments
And he added that the support for his plan from Republican Attorney General John Suthers, Democratic State Treasurer Cary Kennedy and representatives of the business and education communities should outweigh Bruce's arguments.
"Now, you can choose to dismiss that coalition of leaders as a conspiracy of liars, as I believe one witness - and only one witness - suggested you do," Romanoff said. "I hope you won't do that. Instead I hope you will join this coalition of leaders in trying to move Colorado forward."
Bruce railed against what he saw as a conspiracy by the "tax-and-spend crowd" to "con" voters into giving up government accountability, and to allow government to raise taxes without voters' consent by disguising taxes as fees.
"I think people are not going to be fooled," Bruce said. "I think you're frankly not likely to get this proposal adopted, to put it politely. And I just don't think you should, in effect, be badgering the voters and say, 'You don't know really what you want.' "
Romanoff and Bruce scribbled notes as they listened to each other's testimony.
Other than Bruce, everyone who testified supported the plan, which asks voters to put a portion of revenues over the TABOR limit into the State Education Fund. It also locks a portion of that money in a savings account.
Bruce called any promise that the plan would allow voters to retain the right to vote on any tax increases "utter nonsense."
"All we're doing here is deceiving the voters by saying, 'Oh sure, you can vote on taxes, but guess what? We just won't have any more taxes in Colorado. We'll have an income fee, a sales transaction fee, a property fee, and we'll just call everything a fee, and then the Taxpayer's Bill of Rights will just be a bad dream, which is what the tax-and-spend crowd would like," Bruce said.
Frees the legislature
Suthers said he likes Romanoff's plan because it frees the legislature to set budgets. And he said that while, in a perfect world, he would like to see spending growth caps, Romanoff's plan was a good first step.
The measure needs to be approved by two-thirds of both the House and Senate to be put on November's ballot.
Romanoff said if the legislature doesn't lift TABOR's spending limits, the state will run out of money sometime in the middle of the next decade. When that happens, he said, the state will be "back in the very bizarre business of asking folks to shortchange higher education in order to keep up with K-12, or to let our roads and bridges deteriorate in order to issue rebates."
The State, Veterans & Military Affairs Committee plans to vote on the measure this morning.
Romanoff vs. Bruce
What the author and his chief opponent are saying about a plan to untangle the Colorado Constitution's conflicting spending limits and mandates:
HOUSE SPEAKER ANDREW ROMANOFF:
* Seeks to reconcile conflicts between the Taxpayer's Bill of Rights, which requires the state to refund revenues over set limits, and Amendment 23, which requires the state to increase education spending each year.
"The truth is, if folks are not willing to give up TABOR rebates to meet those needs, you're going to run out of revenue resources pretty soon." REP. DOUGLAS BRUCE
* Voters shouldn't "go through another $10 million special-interest campaign to try to con them into voting to give up their right to vote, which is what happened with Referendum C.
"The only thing that's involved here is that people who have a lust for the taxpayers' money are frustrated that there is some limit on their ability to spend other peoples' money."
Comments
Posted by longpasttime on April 30, 2008 at 1:39 a.m. (Suggest removal)
The politicians are already salivating at the prospect of getting their hands on more of our money. TABOR is the only thing preventing that from happening. Don't open the door to never-ending tax increases!!
Posted by jaybyrd on April 30, 2008 at 1:56 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Who is Romanoff kidding? Any move by him will only result in more stringent ballot measures submitted to the voters.Does he really believe that in tougher economic times the voters are willing to have him untangle what we have voted for? My life in Colorado has been just fine knowing there are some limits and some direction imposed on the legislature. (How much longer until this icon is term-limited back to obscurity)?
Posted by longpasttime on April 30, 2008 at 2:47 a.m. (Suggest removal)
"Romanoff said if the legislature doesn't lift TABOR's spending limits, the state will run out of money sometime in the middle of the next decade."
Utter NONSENSE!!! If they need more money, all they need to do is ask - if the voters think the need exists, they will approve it. Why is that such a problem to politicians?
Don't touch TABOR!
Posted by LOUIE on April 30, 2008 at 3:35 a.m. (Suggest removal)
They found a way to silence the author of the TABOR, and will attempt to void the choice rendered by the electorate that empowered this piece of legislation. Mr. Bruce will become the center ring distraction of this event; the people will never see the main crux of this circus is to overturn, limit, amend, or simply gut a piece of law, that truly was the direct will of the people, by vote. Ultimate one to be fooled is the electorate. Mr. Bruce has a personality that steals the whole show with his eccentric vernacular and behavior, and it's is quite entertaining to say the least. It will be the key tool used to silence Mr. Magoo's (Bruce's) voice. Just don't be fooled by the rest of the wolves he sits with, they have a definate agenda folks. This fat farm of overstuffed politicians has always found a way to dine slovenly on the people's dime. If the majority voted for the TABOR, it should stand. I don't care for a lot of things the majority of Americans have voted for, but I will by contract of heart to my country, respect the will and power we give to the majority. Smart play Mr. Romanoff, Magoo will undoubtedly argue passionately for his life's only accomplishment. All his eccentricity will be laid bare, and it truly will turn many against Mr. Magoo. Meanwhile Mr. Romanoff, under the spell of Rasputin and serving the will of both partys, will undermine the electorate, without the electorate ever realizing they were the fools fleeced. Seems both partys can't live on a diet, even if it's the will of the majority of voters, that they do so. "Animal Farm", not to far fetched, quite entertaining as well as enlightening to say the least.
Posted by pwern on April 30, 2008 at 5:41 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Fortunately this is happening prior to the election in November. As voters become more aware of how Democrats actually think we should be governed when they're in the majority, the more likely they will be turned outs of office in favor of a return to a Republican majority. This is what happens when you put liberals in complete control of our state.
Posted by Armie on April 30, 2008 at 5:49 a.m. (Suggest removal)
ANDREW ROMANOFF is a bigger danger to your freedom than anyone ever has been in this state.
He wants to do away with TABOR and he wants to make it harder for the citizens to bring a ballot issue to the voters.
He continues to pour your hard earned tax money into a FAILED education system,
This man will take every freedom that you have and them more.
But you can still vote and call your rep to stop this foolishness.
If the people of Colorado don't defeat this move by the small Rasputin you deserve to live with the government telling you how to live your life and spend your money.
Posted by Earl on April 30, 2008 at 6:25 a.m. (Suggest removal)
this is all about the power the dems want over everyone. they know best on how to spend your money and anything, Tabor, that gets in their way has to go.
first it was ditter letting the unions in by ex order and at night, then it was add a 'fee' not a tax but a 'fee' that voters couldnt vote on.
all I can say is you get what you vote for and guess what you voted for? yep a very liberal tax everyone, everything gov and both houses. they are showing their true colors of how they need more of your money to take care of you, as the general public is so stupid to understand how to spend the money you earn.
Posted by glowrock on April 30, 2008 at 6:33 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Do you guys even think before posting replies on these blogs? I swear, it seems like no matter what the topic, the replies always revert back to "those evil liberals", "Critter's a danger", "Romanoff's a danger", "take away your freedoms", "What happened to the Referendum C money?", and of course my favorite, "But what about the ILLEGALS???".
Do you guys have anything more than canned responses to anything?
For the record, Romanoff's proposal to eliminate Amendment 23 while permanently eliminating Tabor's ratchet-effect is/was a pretty decent proposal. It unties the legislature's hands when it comes to drafting budgets, it still keeps the public vote of tax increases in place, and it stops sacrificing higher education at the expense of K-12 education. Why is this a bad thing?
Posted by Jim_in_Erie on April 30, 2008 at 6:39 a.m. (Suggest removal)
I don't care what you call it, anything that makes what I spend money on cost me more, costs me more.
I don't know if it was an original line, but "Politics: the Art of the Possible" pretty well describes politicians and how they think.
The Speaker said " the state will run out of money sometime in the middle of the next decade." Wow, if THAT isn't a scare tactic, then I don't know what one looks like.
Also if, and because it's a politician-it's a HUGE 'if', there truly is evidence that at current spending and projected growth levels, the State is going to "run out of money" in the next decade, reduce spending.
There, Mr Speaker dude, fixed the whole damn problem for ya.
No need to kill off TABOR. No need to seek to impose 'fees' that generate the exact same revenue that taxes would.
No need to lie to the citizens of the State, then blame the obvious increase in the cost everything on "unintended consequences".
Posted by Buckwheat on April 30, 2008 at 6:49 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Get rid of TABOR and it will be back to "Spend and Tax"... Wait, if the people voted for TABOR, shouldn't it be up to them to decide if they want it removed? Another attempt to overide the will of the majority to satisfy the special interest of the few. If the people want to vote out TABOR fine. I'll back their play, but not the State's.
Posted by Jim_in_Erie on April 30, 2008 at 6:53 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Glowrock.......
You said "It unties the legislature's hands when it comes to drafting budgets".
Explain that to me please.
All tax limits like TABOR do is make it so the legislature has to work within limits when drafting budgets. What is this crud people are putting out about how the legislature isn't 'free' to draft a budget?
Heck, a 'budget', by definition, is a plan to spend limited resources in the most advantageous way possible.
It seems to me that the 'freedom' the Speaker and others are looking for is the ability to draft spending programs without restraints of such silly notions like limits.
Just how big does government have to be in order to have the "freedom to draft budgets"???
I don't personally know if the teachers union is for or against this proposal. If they are for it, it cannot be a good idea, because it would, as you say- "eliminate Amendment 23". Something that they fought long and hard to get enacted. Without something to replace it, and it's auto pilot growth provisions, they wouldn't support this for a nano second.
It IS a increase in revenue collected, and spent, by the State.
Some of us believe that the government, at all levels, already gets more then it's 'fair' share of other peoples money. So we decry ANY plan to smooth talk yet another way to get more of it.
Posted by DougH on April 30, 2008 at 7:06 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Finally - Common Sense arrives to Colorado after years of the goofy experiment known as TABOR. It is way past time to dump TABOR and start running the state by the good old representative democracy that the rest of the country is built on.
The sky will not fall with the demise of TABOR, nor will the money hungry tax and spend politicians confiscate all of your hard earned money and give it way to people you don’t like. Actual governing may spring up anew in Colorado and we will no longer be the laughing stock of the rest of the country. What a concept.
Posted by glowrock on April 30, 2008 at 7:08 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Fine, keep cutting taxes, and keep the state budget from rising in accordance with population growth and inflation (and I'm talking about REAL inflation, not the CPI garbage that certainly doesn't take into account commodities/natural resources and construction costs). Keep the state from ever being able to properly rebuild, repair, and replace its aging infrastructure. Fine, go ahead. I'm sorry, but we're talking about roads, bridges, pipelines, sewers, and many other important projects. We're not talking about throwing more money at garbage, bud.
Freedom to draft budgets? One thing I'm sick of is how people who love TABOR have no clue about the ratchet effect it has on the budget. Get rid of the ratchet permanently, and things will be much, much better.
Again, it's a GOOD thing to have voter-approved tax increases, but it's the ratchet-down effect that kills the state's ability to improve itself in terms of capital construction.
Posted by novogk on April 30, 2008 at 7:20 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Leave TABOR as it is and keep your filthy liberal tard fingers away from my wallet.
Posted by DougH on April 30, 2008 at 7:26 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Glowrock - Well said, It is time for people to get a grip and understand that there is no free lunch. We either keep up a quality of life in Colorado that people before us have paid for , or we let it go to hell for our children to fix.
Romanoff has an excellant plan that makes sense and will resolve a huge problem. That is exactly what we expect our elected representatives to do.
It is time people supported postitive work from the legislature, or maybe it is just easier to bash them all the time, God forbid that anyone should take a reasonable approach to this or any issue.
Posted by Dick_Tater on April 30, 2008 at 7:31 a.m. (Suggest removal)
You know with my home value going down...gas prices, food, insurance premiums all going up. I'm trying to figure out what to do with all this extra money just laying around. Yes, lets get rid of TABOR! Why not give more to the people who manage money the worst, they will know how to get rid of it.
Posted by Lowtaxequalsfreedom on April 30, 2008 at 7:31 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Glowrock,
I support Tabor and I am aware of the so called ratchet mechanism. Glowrock you seem to be an expert can you tell us the exact dollar amount the supposed ratchet has affected the State budget? In what years? If you adjust the ratchet against ref C what is the outcome?
Glowrock I have a hunch that you do not know the answers to these questions. You repeat the typical catch phrases that those who make there living from taxpayer moneys. Are one of those which I speak?
Glowrock while you are at it please list the total spending amount of the State for the 1992 year and every year since. You will be surprised to see that even with Tabor this amount has went up SIGNIIGANTLY each and every year. Tabor is not nearly as tough as the pick pockets claim it to be.
Posted by mac_44 on April 30, 2008 at 7:48 a.m. (Suggest removal)
DougH... The voters learned the hard way that the politicians, Republican and Democrat alike, could not be trusted with the peoples money. That's why TABOR passed. They are pretty free with other people's money.
Do you remember when TABOR passed? The politicians screamed like stuck hogs! The state is going to go broke. There were a lot of red faces when they had to give money back in the form of sales tax rebates.
When they say, "Trust us," grab your wallet.
Posted by Lowtaxequalsfreedom on April 30, 2008 at 7:48 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Romanoff is a baby faces hypocrite. If you scrutinize what he says you will see what I mean. He claims that citizens are not qualified to make budget decisions. He claims that citizens should not be amending the State Constitution. He claims that 23 is causing a contradiction. Then he turns right around and directs group of citizens to amend the Constitution with more guidelines. Romanoff might be pretty but he is NO economist. He is a typical “we want more of your power and we more of your money” politician. If you want to turn your life over to the State then you should support all of Romanoff’s ideas.
If 23 is the problem then why not repeal 23 and leave Tabor alone? He is after Tabor. 23 is an excuse. There is no contradiction.
The people have voiced there opinion and the people have said this. THE STATE CAN GROW AT THE RATE OF INFLATION PLUS POPULATION. THE STATE VIA 23 MUST PLACE K-12 AT THE TOP OF THE LIST. IF THE STATE NEEDS A TEMPORAY BOOST JUST ASK US. THE STATE MUST PRIORITZE. WE DO NOT CARE IF SOME THINGS GET TRIMMED BACK; USE YOUR DISCRETION BUT KEEP K-12 ATOP THE LIST.
So the people have spoken. Do we believe that the people have the right?
Posted by Jim_in_Erie on April 30, 2008 at 7:56 a.m. (Suggest removal)
I'm not anything like an expert on taxes, spending, budgets or the like.
However, it occurs to me that one form of government revenue generation has been around for, well, as long as there have been governments needing to raise revenue.
That said, nothing 'new' is going to come out of anyone today that hasn't been offered before. Only new packaging. Or, more likely, recycled packaging that the seller hopes the buyer has forgotten about. Call it the "new" Snake Oil Salesman.
The absolute belief, by some, that regardless of economic realities, some programs are absolutely inviolate, that's a big part of the problem. And I'm not talking about true infrastructure like roads and bridges, police, fire and the like.
To much of many government's budgeting is mandated by a variety of laws that allow for no reduction in spending. Even when there is a reduction in revenue, because of economic situations the government cannot control.
What percent of Colorado's annual budget is on auto pilot?
There, it seems to me, is the problem, and every time we turn around, the 'discretionary' part that remains seems to shrink.
AND even that gets more and more pressure to be tied to absolute spending requirements.
How that makes any kind of long term sense...well, that's a mystery 'understood' only by those who call everyone else uneducated. Then, of course, they run for political office and declare that 'the end of the world is upon us', if we don't agree to their unique solution.
Tax and Spend is tax and spend. I don't care how you clothe it, it's tax and spend.
Posted by glowrock on April 30, 2008 at 8:08 a.m. (Suggest removal)
The problem here is that infrastructure improvements don't get cheaper over time, they get far more expensive? Colorado should live within its means? Well fine, let infrastructure crumble. Let schools fall apart. There, now the state can live within its means.
Have the budgets risen year over year? Yep. Have they risen in line with population growth and inflation (again, NOT the CPI, but construction inflation?) Nope.
When you have a fast-growing population, when you have construction costs that rise significantly year over year, when commodities prices are going through the roof, you need to increase budgets for maintenance, expansions, and repairs. Period.
Again, do I believe there is wasteful spending and redundancy? Yep. Does it need to be curbed and/or eliminated? Of course. Does this amount equal anywhere near what is needed to repair and replace aging infrastructure needs? Absolutely not.
I'm frankly getting very sick and tired of the Libertarians here who seem to want all of their nice government services (ie: roads/bridges/infrastructure), but don't want to pay for it.
Oh yes, there is one area of the budget I can see that needs to be cut back, the prison/corrections budget. Stop putting people away for 10-20 years for relatively minor crimes, start putting people away for LIFE for the major ones, and you'll relieve stress on the system as well as placate those "all criminals need to be punished severely forever" crowds...
Posted by Mike_In_Hartsel on April 30, 2008 at 8:10 a.m. (Suggest removal)
"Other than Bruce, everyone who testified supported the plan"
Could that be because only supporters were invited?
Posted by Lowtaxequalsfreedom on April 30, 2008 at 8:24 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Glowrock,
Have you ever witnessed road Construction in progress? It is wastefull! About as wastefull as it get's. Why? Becasue governemnt keeps throwing taxpayer dollars at road construction. The more we throw the more wastefull it becomes.
Glowrock what rate should government revenue and spending be allowed to increase?
Posted by malis on April 30, 2008 at 8:25 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Atta way Dougie, keep screeching! Every time he speaks, Romanoff's plan get more Republican support!
In the past decade several states have passed TABOR-like laws differing in detail but having in common a requirement for citizen approval of any new tax or tax increase. The others, however, avoided Doug Bruce's sly government sabotage provision--an obscure mechanism to ensure a continuing and never-ending *decline* (not just halt in growth) of real government revenues. TABOR's biggest shortcoming is that, as an amendment to the Colorado Constitution, it can't be adjusted to account for real world lessons learned (and folks, the real word does teach lessons)
I think Bruce knew that wasn't sustainable over the long term but, because of his irrational antithapy to any form of authority other than himself, wanted it simply for the endless mischief it would cause.
I'm fairly optimistic about Romanoff's proposal if it manages to avoid the sabotage of both the left and the right. It retains the requirement for a direct vote on any new tax or tax increase, while addressing the shortcomings of both TABOR and Amendment 23 (too bad he couldn't work the Gallagher Amendment in there) in a way that should meet the "single-subject" rule (probably why it doesn't address Gallagher).
If the details work out (still a question of course) it stands a very good chance of passing. Most Independents will support it (we want government to work, not disappear) and it should pick up both Republican and Democratic moderates (the same coalition that elected Gov. Ritter, Senator Salazar, and AG Suthers; and passed Ref C).
Posted by Earl on April 30, 2008 at 8:31 a.m. (Suggest removal)
why is the state advertising on TV all the benefits of WIC and looking for more people to give money too? could it be they have more than they need and the surplus could go to glowrocks infrastructure improvements? lets make all highways toll roads and use the money to fix them. just think of the money per day I 70 and 25 would bring in. make it real easy say 1 dollar to get on and a dollar to get off for all non commercial vehicalswho would pay 1.25. think of the dollars coming in just during rush hours. think if only 200k cars and trucks were on the interstate during rush hour a 4 bucks per day time 20 days that would be 16 million a month for raods. [$4 per day per car time 20 days] dont need road taxes anymore.
Posted by malis on April 30, 2008 at 8:38 a.m. (Suggest removal)
...and for the others who either don't understand or pretend not to understand the damage TABOR causes, let's clarify a few things. TABOR had some positives. It forced better planning and budgeting than would have happened otherwise. It might have helped prevent California-like over-budgeting during the surpluses of the late 90s. The real question is, how can we make it work in the real world?
First, TABOR does allow spending to increase as population increases. Its spending restriction is based on a formula combining inflation+population and prior year spending. The problem is its one-way ratchet--when a downturn in the economy causes lower taxes to be collected and resultant lower spending in a specific year, a new and lower ceiling is set (usually well below inflation or population growth during that period). When the
economy goes back up, spending can't return to even the previous level (in real terms as adjusted for inflation). This didn't happen until the 2001 recession and we managed to pass Ref. C to limit the damage. It will happen again in the current recession unless we can fix it.
Other "real world lessons learned" also factor in, primarily that government products and services have very large components with a history of prices increased well over inflation, including road building materials such as concrete, steel, and (petroleum-based) asphalt; health care (mandated Medicaid spending necessary to qualify for Federal matching Medicaid funds); and college tuition (which could certainly use some reform of its own, but that's a different topic).
Vitriolic anti-government obsessives will continue to scream no matter what. Luckily, the true number of people with a visceral dislike of any government authority, overrepresented as they may be in a forum such as this, is quite small (the "shrink government until it's small enough to drown in the bathtub" crowd). The rest of us (the rational majority) will continue in our efforts to make government accountable but effective.
Posted by Lowtaxequalsfreedom on April 30, 2008 at 8:41 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Malis,
Just as Tabor does not adjust for personal income growth it also does not adjust downward for economies of scale. Should the government not be getting more efficient as it grows? More people does not automatically dictate increased spending. The bigger gov gets the less it should require per person. Do you understand this?
Secondly if there was no cut back feature then how do you offset all of the voter approved tax increases?
Somebody please graph for me the actual spending increase over the past 15 years. You will see that the State has grown significantly. NOT TO METION THE BURDEN THAT HAS BEEN SHIFTED TO ENTERPRISE FUNDS AND TO LOCALITIES!
Did you figure in Federal State spending as well?
Factor all of it, the beast is huge.
Posted by Mtnsjohn on April 30, 2008 at 8:47 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Education is the sacred cow, and public education constantly promises improvements that seem never to come. Throw away CSAP because it reveals poor teaching and failing education. (What percentage of kids never graduate in Denver?)
Part of the reason we "need" more dollars spent for public education is that we are footing the bill to "educate" thousands of illegal immigrant children who largely don't identify with the US but with their country to the south. How did the US Supreme Court ever figure that it is our responsibility to educate the children of the world if they just happen to trespass into the US with their parents in the dead of night? (I am not talking anchor babies, but those who are here just as illegally as their parents) Have we seen any statistics or figures revealing the added costs associated with educating these children compared to US born and those of legal immigrants?
Posted by kirbysfriend22 on April 30, 2008 at 8:48 a.m. (Suggest removal)
TABOR is garbage and so is it's author.
Posted by Lowtaxequalsfreedom on April 30, 2008 at 8:49 a.m. (Suggest removal)
If we truly want the elected official to be in control then we need to repeal all of it. Tabor, 23, Gallagher, Avenbourg, CRS 6% and all of the other constitutionally and statutory imposed guidelines. Then we will truly see what our elected officials are made of. Folks I have had a glimpse and it isn’t pretty!
Posted by glowrock on April 30, 2008 at 8:51 a.m. (Suggest removal)
So, Lowtaxequalsfreedom, I take it you want all roads to be privatized (and thus tolled), and I take it you want all road construction to be privatized as well? I take it you want no public monies whatsoever involved in road construction? Does this go for more than the freeways and other state highways? How about your local streets? How about local arterials?
Are you prepared to pay tolls on every single road you drive on?
Posted by glowrock on April 30, 2008 at 8:52 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Perfect, Mtnsjohn brings up the illegals again. Isn't that just special? As usual, we can't go one topic without that issue being brought up, legitimately or not...
Posted by Lowtaxequalsfreedom on April 30, 2008 at 8:56 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Malis,
Your buddy Romanoff claims to have permanently removed the ratchet via Ref C. Where is your argument now?
Posted by RS on April 30, 2008 at 8:57 a.m. (Suggest removal)
The problem here, technically, is obvious. The plan is to trade a temporary, and soon to expire, Amendment 23 requirement for the permanent TABOR requirement. All of this not long after the public has proven they will adjust TABOR (Ref. C) as TABOR itself contemplated and the voters implemented. TABOR works, we have handed over an additional $6 billion to the state with the Ref C vote, relaxing TABOR for the several years where Amendment 23 created a problem. Is budgeting difficult? Yep, but apparently not so difficult that the legislature was preventing from creating the "Blue Ribbon" 208 Commission to study a way to roll out yet another "free" service - universal health care - paid for by strapped taxpayers. Most of us cannot afford any more "free" services - especially ones to provide a service we already have plenty of. If those incapable of paying for services, for whatever reason, are simply provided those services "free" from the taxpayer, I really doubt they will find a way to improve themselves when they have no need to do so.
Posted by Lowtaxequalsfreedom on April 30, 2008 at 9:02 a.m. (Suggest removal)
GlowRock,
Privatize the court system while you are at it:)
Posted by jbowen43 on April 30, 2008 at 9:03 a.m. (Suggest removal)
The conservative repuglican party of greed and hate always will find its voice when it comes to opposing legislation that helps everyone. It's always about "me" when it comes to the GOP (Greedy Old People).
Posted by Lowtaxequalsfreedom on April 30, 2008 at 9:06 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Well I have got to go to work now, otherwise the tax man cometh and take it all away. Peace out.
Posted by Froward69 on April 30, 2008 at 9:19 a.m. (Suggest removal)
glowrock, DougH, Dick_Tater, kirbysfriend22, You are all spot on. wether it be "taxes" or "fees" our state needs money to function. I would rather our state function effectively than hear the complaints from the right as to how "my bridge fell down" or "why isnt the snow removed" or the best one will be "I do not care if ICE or the state patrol does not have the funds to deport those illegals! Just deport them" more societal debt to pass on to the next generations.
Tabor sounds fine until one takes into account as to how crippling it actually is to state government. resulting in "Fees" for everything.
I find it tragic as to how republicans think "government waste" is rampant while it is not "wasteful" to give away billions to corporate interests with no return. Thats Fascism folks.
Posted by malis on April 30, 2008 at 9:26 a.m. (Suggest removal)
ltef, Ref C was one time "catch up", expires after five years. Mostly recovers from last slowdown, but are you planning to outlaw the business cycle?
Actually, you've identified part of the long-term solution: "repeal all of it. Tabor, 23, Gallagher, Avenbourg, CRS 6% and all of the other constitutionally and statutory imposed guidelines." (although it's relatively easy to revise statutes--it's the Constitutional Amendments that are the problem). There's a initiative pending addressing some of that issue (make an amendment harder, an initiative easier, but make it harder for Legislature to revise citizen Initiatives).
Posted by JSeifert on April 30, 2008 at 9:34 a.m. (Suggest removal)
If the State needs more money all they have to do is put it before the taxpayers. What is so hard unless they do not want the tax payer to know what they are paying for! God forbid if they had to ask first.
Posted by vudumom on April 30, 2008 at 9:48 a.m. (Suggest removal)
The government just imposed a fee on car registrations. Though it won't cover everything at one time, it is a start to repair roads and infrastructure.
We have been promised for years that school districts will get rid of their wasteful spending. It has not happened. In Adams county we voted on a mill levy tax 4 years ago. None of that money has gotten into the classroom yet. Where is it going? To the very top heavy administraions. It has yet to affect the actual goal , which was to improved education in the schools. The money has been hijacked and spent by the administrations.
Denver already feeds school children free breakfasts and lunches ragardless of income levels. Shouldn't parents have to prove they are in need? Millions of savings there.
Denver voted a new tax for daycare, I mean preschool. Wasted millions because one year of preschool will not prepare the majority of students for kindergarten. It really ends up being free daycare. Millions wasted there.
The arguement that the more people that move here the more money the government needs is a false arguement. The people who move and live here end up paying taxes for everything they buy,taxes if they buy a home,taxes if they buy a car,fees and personal property taxes on vehicles,head tax if they work in Denver,etc....
So that arguement doesn't fly.
If the Tabor admentment is taken away the government then has a blank check to do whatever it wants to continue to tax and spend. Tabor was voted on by the citizens and if changed in anyway should be voted on by the citizens. It is time for the government entities in this state to do what all of us are doing, tightening are belts and cutting out frivilous spending. When the economy is in a bind it is a sign for the government to cut back their wasteful spending.
Posted by LoFat on April 30, 2008 at 10 a.m. (Suggest removal)
To paraphrase Will Rogers, a comedian of the 1930's, the Democrats "have never met a dollar they didn't want".
Posted by glowrock on April 30, 2008 at 10:03 a.m. (Suggest removal)
And the Republicans never met a dollar they didn't want, as long as they could spend and cut taxes forever, thus creating monumental yearly deficits and overall debt loads!
Posted by Lowtaxequalsfreedom on April 30, 2008 at 10:04 a.m. (Suggest removal)
The last time a bridge came down in Colorado it was because a Government employee dispatcher refused to heed the warning from many private citizens. The beam collapsed and people died!
Posted by JB82 on April 30, 2008 at 11:25 a.m. (Suggest removal)
I think that everyone needs to educate themselves on the issue. To understand how TABOR, Amendment 23, ARVESCHOUG-BIRD, federal match requirements, and other things affect the state budget. A good outline to read which is non-partisan is here:
http://www.cclponline.org/pubfiles/bu...
explanation of TABOR and other limits starts on pg. 15
All politics aside, Colorado is clearly an anomaly when it comes to budgeting. We have made the example of what other states have voted not to do, because they can see the problems that we have. It would be nice if we could just say that the legislators need to tighten the belt, but there are still other requirements that wont allow it to tighten.
If we wonder why I had to work two jobs to attend college in Colorado, and the kids who are going now are in a worse boat, we really need to confront the issues that our state has with managing its money. In order to do that we need to scrap systems that don't work, and start fresh. Constitutional Convention!
As for Mr. Bruce: TABOR may have been his when he wrote it, but the courts have interpreted it, it has grown, and it is not the baby he once knew it to be... but hey I guess it still keeps his wallet fat!
Posted by jay on April 30, 2008 at 11:40 a.m. (Suggest removal)
bipartisan coalition vs. conspiracy theory bruce
Posted by RickyLee on April 30, 2008 at 2:13 p.m. (Suggest removal)
"...a conspiracy of liars..."
Yep! Couldn't say it better than tax-happy Romanoff himself!!!!!!
Mess with TABOR, commit political suicide.
Posted by Lowtaxequalsfreedom on April 30, 2008 at 2:43 p.m. (Suggest removal)
JB82,
I bet Minnesota wishes they had a Tabor to blame there most recent bridge collaspe on.
Posted by Lowtaxequalsfreedom on April 30, 2008 at 2:47 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Jay,
Bipartisan? Who ever said that both Republicans and Democrats dont have a spending addiction?
Posted by p_myers661 on April 30, 2008 at 3:13 p.m. (Suggest removal)
I'm still looking for some Ref C ads I saved to wave in the faces of the idiots who believed the lies. When I find them I'll give exact quotes but for now some paraphrases.
Ref C will not only provide the state with additional revenue to solve the current budget crisis but the resetting of the ratchet will make it possible for the state to plan for the future.
Posted by p_myers661 on April 30, 2008 at 3:15 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Glowrock
""those evil liberals", "Critter's a danger", "Romanoff's a danger", "take away your freedoms", "What happened to the Referendum C money?", and of course my favorite, "But what about the ILLEGALS???".
The reason those subjects, come up is that they are valid observations and questions.
Ritter is a danger because he will approve anything the unions, the teachers and the liberal coalition who helped elect him tell him to approve. (Republicans are just beholden to a different group of supporters.)
Ref C was estimated to provide an amount of money. There were projections of tax revenue and promises that this would solve the problems. Tax revenues were purposely underestimated but the real numbers were much higher than any optimist would have dared dream. The money provided by Ref C was much greater because of those increased revenues. Bur, it is not permitted to ask for an accounting. When my husband can't balance his checkbook he doesn't blame the bank for not adding enough money to his account. He can ask for help, reduce his spending or ask for help on both sides. The state can ask for money and voters have shown that they will approve good causes. Heck, they will even buy a pack of lies...once.
Taking away freedoms is a stretch. It's more like taking away your earned money so it can be spent to buy votes. It's more like taking away your freedom to keep a reasonable amount of the product of your labor.
Those illegals create a drain on the economy. Many work under the radar and pay no taxes. Others declare high numbers of dependents and pay almost nothing in taxes. The support structure for welfare benefits, printing paperwork in multiple languages, creating and maintaining a bi-lingual education system and being responsible for a drain on our health care services are what the flood of illegals are responsible for creating/causing.
If they were not illegal immigrants but just immigrants or new residents in our state, they would create a demand for services and state outlays for their benefit. More schools for the kids, more police to protect them and more state services available like firemen. That is why people complain about illegals when the state screams for more tax money. Most of those who want to end this flood have put punishing the employers at the top of the list. High fines and other consequences would cause self-deportaion and provide revenues as well.
TABOR can actually be defined by the attackers and defenders. Its attackers are politicians who spend the tax money. The defenders are those whose labor provides the money those politicians crave. Don't buy another bill of goods from the Ref C liars. We can't afford to buy them any more votes.
Posted by jay on April 30, 2008 at 4:25 p.m. (Suggest removal)
"Ritter is a danger because he will approve anything the unions, the teachers and the liberal coalition who helped elect him tell him to approve."
This is inaccurate...but i imagine that pmeyers already knew that before typing it
and come on...our country's systems have much bigger problems than the "drain" represented by 5% of the population who are illegal immigrants.
that dog won't hunt anymore outside of the rush limbaugh fantasy hour.
the unfortunate truth about TABOR is that it has both good and bad aspects. the bipartisan group of supports represented this session are simply trying to keep the good and reform the bad.
i just don't see the issue
Posted by JSeifert on April 30, 2008 at 4:29 p.m. (Suggest removal)
I feel I am hearing the simpsons: What about the children. If the State wants money they need to ask like oliver. Can I have some more please. Not pay or go to jail tax increases or Fees for breathing air like our rain water fee here no one is paying. They talk about how hard it is for us paying our bills but the State want more of our money I say Beg for it on your hands and knees.
Posted by p_myers661 on April 30, 2008 at 4:34 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Sorry the majority of my first post disappeared.
TABOR came with built in flexibility. The state could delay sending the rebates for up to five years. Revenues could be evened out to deal with lean years by delaying rebates. The first five years were in good times. Legislators kept the rebates until the last minute then paid them from current tax revenues. Five years later, there was no choice and the rebates went out during the recession. That created the problems, not the ratchet. Budgets increased every year. Politicians don't like having to ask for approval from the voters. It means that those ignorant peasants, us, were going to see where the money was going.
Had rebates been sent out on schedule, there would not have been a crisis. Real difficulties came from the fact that the legislators used up the five years like a homeowner with a mortgage contract that lets them skip five payments and skips the first five payments.
The natural answer to those who hated those restrictions was to find/create a situation where money HAD to be spent on an increasing budget item. Amendment 23 was the perfect Trojan horse. "For the children," (who haven't benefited from more education funding yet) it passed on a feel-good vote. It's worked too. Not that education got better or funds really got down to the classroom level, but the budget was pinched and it was a real crisis to blame on TABOR.
The proposed elimination of 23 is a fraud also. There will be money "set-aside" for education under this plan. Let them repeal 23 and all other state-mandated spending. That will save money.
To add revenues, they can enact strict rules for businesses making hiring illegal aliens too dangerous financially. Make the fines extremely heavy and put them in the general fund for the legislature to use at will. A fine of five thousand dollars per illegal worker and a tripling of the fee for the business license for a period of five years would do it for starters. Loss of the license would be a second offense penalty. That would provide revenue and reduce expense as the self-deportation takes place.
Not just wishful thinking. Ask Oklahoma how much they have reduced expenses. Stop running advertisements asking people to sign up for state benefits. Save money and there will be no problems.
Posted by Fresh on April 30, 2008 at 4:48 p.m. (Suggest removal)
I am siding with tabor. No matter how you slice it, politicians cannot be given a blank check under any circumstances. they are NOT to be trusted EVER, and mandating them to find a better way is what they were elected for.
this is when we find out if they are worth our vote
Posted by jay on April 30, 2008 at 5:12 p.m. (Suggest removal)
" politicians cannot be given a blank check under any circumstances"
no doubt.
i don't, however, believe that the coalition of the bipartisans are advocating as much, but maybe i missed it. do you have a link to this disturbing turn of events in the tabor negotiation process?
"TABOR came with built in flexibility."
apparently both dems and rubs in the state house disagree that it has enough flexibility to operate as effectively as it could. i think it's fair to take a look at it now and determine what improvements can be made and what victories can be shared.
sounds reasonable, no?
Posted by p_myers661 on April 30, 2008 at 5:34 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Jay
Every politician must keep their fundraisers and campaign workers happy or they could be out of office. Ritter's group was teachers, unions and "progressive thinkers" (liberals who know much better than the worker how to spend the money he earned). Owens had his group too.
You probably know this as you have complained about some members of Republican election campaigns.
Tabor was/is a great idea and it worked quite well until Amendment 23, a deliberate action that guaranteed budget trouble. I'm going to check the archives to see how many of our legislative prophets mentioned the consequences of Amendment 23 during that campaign.
I think we need to post a copy of TABOR so people can see why politicians are so upset. They actually have to talk to the voters about something other than how critical it is to keep their tailfeathers in the legislative chair.
Politicians don't like talking to the voters about this. They are the elite. They know what's best for us much better than we know for ourselves. TABOR has been and will be on the bullseye of every legislator forever. We only need to just say no to tax and spend politicians whether they are liberals, conservatives or stray dogs just filling in for someone.
Posted by jay on April 30, 2008 at 5:37 p.m. (Suggest removal)
conspiracy theories aside...if both rubs and dems can come together on a compromise to update tabor...keeping the portions that have been effective and reforming those that have not...where's the downside here?
Posted by p_myers661 on April 30, 2008 at 7:45 p.m. (Suggest removal)
"conspiracy theories aside...if both rubs and dems can come together on a compromise to update tabor...keeping the portions that have been effective and reforming those that have not...where's the downside here?"
Sorry. Upon re-read it does sound like a conspiracy. It was merely a convenient tool that came to the hands of politicians whose entire existence depends upon their ability to spend other peoples' money to buy votes.
As for both sides being in agreement...Ali Baba and the 40 thieves would agree with Captain Kidd. That doesn't mean that their agreement makes it right.
Leave TABOR alone. If they want more money, they can ask for it. Nothing is more certain than the fact that politicians, with one strange exception, are all most interested in their own political careers. They prosper by spending money. Let's have a look at the budget and see if we can find something we can cut.
Cut advertising for welfare services.
Cut half of all education management personnel.
Cut free health care at Denver General (Denver Health) by taking fingerprints of all patients who don't have identification. Keep them on file and file charges against any who gives false information. (This will only be detectable on a subsequent visit, but will discourage first visits except in real emergencies.)
Cut the five man road crews with only two of them working.
Close schools that don't have enough students. (Would be a good idea but savings would be reduced by the cost of bodyguards for anyone suggesting cutting "my" school, as seen by every voter.)
Charge a fee for events that close roads like Taste of Colorado and Cinco de Mayo.
Stop printing forms for state assistance in any language but English.
Cut legislative staff by half. Let them share a secretarial puddle.
I'd make parking on the hill metered (just the ones in the statehouse circle)
Finally, I'd extend the legislative session by two months and only have the legislature in session in election years.
Jay, I believe in Ronald Reagan's famous statement, "Government isn't the solution, it's the problem." That was when I became a Republican. It has proven true every time.
You might prefer the famous speech from "Teahouse of the August Moon, "First Chinese come help Okinawa. Then Japanese come help Okinawa. Now Americans come help us. We learn. When anyone come help Okinawa, hide everything fast."
Posted by Lowtaxequalsfreedom on April 30, 2008 at 7:59 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Jay,
The compromise would be to completely repeal 23. No more conflict. If the budget is still low they can present the voter with another referendum. It is simple.
Jay if you research the history of this you will realize that Romanoff has been after Tabor nearly his entire career. Taking down Tabor is a huge trophy and a huge way for an aspiring politician to make a name for himself. The teachers union would probably label him as the second coming.
Jay I have a 3 year old son and I am a Colorado Native. I care about education and Colorado as much as anybody. I have been reading Tabor for 10 years because of my interaction at the local level. I understand Tabor very well. This entire argument is based on false premises. Just ask yourself this. What is the maximum amount the State budget should be able to expand every year? Tabor mandates the budget grow every year at the rate of inflation plus population increase. So you can except a 3-4 % increase each and every year. If the State needs more tahn 3-4% alls they have to do is ask for more. That is what Ref C was. They asked and we granted. We actually have power for once. Imagine if the Feds had to do the same thing? Romanoff is trying to remove the formula for increased spending which is inflation plus population that I previously mentioned. 23 is just a cover up. If 23 is a problem as Romanoff suggest then why not repeal 23 and leave everything else alone?
Jay you need to realize that most politicians even Republicans are spendaholics. If we do not slow them nobody will. Sure you can elect politicians who claim to be fiscally responsible but once they get elected the pressure to spend is ENOURMOUS. They have people stopping at there homes, calling them, emailing them, gift giving, hosting events and all kinds of other pressured to SPEND!
You see the problem?
Posted by Lowtaxequalsfreedom on May 1, 2008 at 8:43 a.m. (Suggest removal)
P_myers 661,
I really like you. Keep posting. You have a non abrasive style that is also very informative.
Posted by Heidi on May 1, 2008 at 10:04 a.m. (Suggest removal)
p_myers, great ideas to reduce spending! Especially the fingerprint idea.
Posted by p_myers661 on May 1, 2008 at 10:19 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Lowtaxes...
Thanks. Non abrasive is one word I never expected to see attached to me. Ask my former students. I'm sure theyd disagree.
Joking aside, I believe in talking, not shouting.
This issue is personal as I have lived in Colorado for most of my adult life. I even listened to a radio host talking on the eve of one election where Bruce's initiative failed. Seems Doug Bruce never was streetwise in politics and didn't think going on a radio show the night before an election was worth his time. Hasn't learned to play CYA first. He won't ever win an election to office that way.
I remember being glad when TABOR finally passed. Loved getting the rebate checks but mostly loved knowing that smart politicians would have to be careful how they spent money. I'm still looking for the campaign literature from both Ref C, Amendment 23 and the original battle for TABOR.
When I find it I'll quote it here and post it on a blog. Guess I'll have to start one. Not something I planned to do since I spend too much time in the hospital lately.
I'm sure I'll find Romanoff in favor of 23 against Tabor at all times and, this is certain, a supporter of Ref. C at all times.
Perhaps the heightened attention Doug Bruce is getting is encouraged by a media who knew this was going to be proposed. Not pre-planned just convenient. It's like all the reports of shark attacks after a movie about them. The movie didn't create the attacks just enough interest in them to make it worthwhile to include them in the daily news report.
Doug Bruce is getting a lot of attention. Guess the media has never seen a politician who didn't try to only offer public opinions that would create good PR. Neither have most of us.
Now if only I can find enough energy to hold a BBQ for some of these posters so we can sit down with a plate of food in front of us instead of a keyboard. Good food always quiets tempers or at least keeps mouths too full for too much talking.
Posted by Lowtaxequalsfreedom on May 4, 2008 at 9:29 a.m. (Suggest removal)
http://www.cato.org/pubs/bp/bp95.pdf
Post your comment (Requires free registration.)
Comments are the sole responsibility of the person posting them. You agree not to post comments that are off topic, defamatory, obscene, abusive, threatening or an invasion of privacy. Violators may be banned. Click here for our full user agreement.